Monday, April 12, 2010

Look, I know that Los Angeles is more of a Lakers town than a Dodgers town, a shift that happened around the 1980s, fueled by a disparity in championship titles since then, among myriad other reasons. But Sunday's print edition sunk the LA Times to new lows, when, instead of running Dylan Hernandez' recap of the Dodgers' 7-6 loss to the Marlins Saturday, they printed copy that they pulled straight off the Associated Press wire.

That's right, the LA Times printed the exact same article that ran on ESPN, Yahoo Sports, and in any other number of media outlets that couldn't afford to send a reporter to cover the game. The LA Times ran generic copy.

In column one. In the upper left hand corner of the front page of the Sports section. To cover the city's only legitimate major league baseball team.

Oh sure, they took the time to add thumbnail headshots of George Sherrill and Matt Kemp. That took some effort in the press room, I'm sure. But the fact that online readers could get Hernandez' perspective and insight for free, while paying subscribers got the same nonexclusive crap they could have read anywhere else the night before, is an insult to the few people who even bother to subscribe to the LA Times anymore.

I'm assuming Hernandez, who filed great copy about the Saturday game (complete with quotes from Sherrill, Torre, and Kemp), was actually at Sun Life Stadium in Miami for the game. Then why didn't the LA Times use it for the print edition?

I'm one of those few people, diminishing in number, who appreciate the morning ritual of walking down the driveway in the morning to pick up the newspaper and then read the key articles over coffee in one's bathrobe. Yes, I know what happened in the game; I watched most of it. And then I saw the highlights on ESPN SportsCenter. And then I read a couple of online articles using my iPad before going to bed.

So is it too much to ask to pay for a reporter to cover the Dodgers on away games, and then print 30 column inches of copy when it comes in?

Give me a reason to keep subscribing, LA Times, rather than continuing to find ways to question my purchase.

23
comments:

It's not that Dylan didn't write a story - it's all about print deadline issues which have been complicated by their recent deals to share their presses. Dylan's story appeared online and in later editions.

There is virtually no excuse - in this day of instantaneous transmission of data - for geographic distance to keep a story filed from the field not to make it into the main edition. (And I'm putting that on the Times, not Hernandez).

I'm with Sax in that even though I've watched the game, read about it on this and other fine online establishments, watched more about it on late-night sports recap shows (who seemed to find the time to put a story together), read the Tweets, etc., I still want to read about the game the next morning in the paper that I pay full price for. Unfortunately, the Times has placed all its emphasis on writers more intent on stirring the pot (e.g., being anti-Dodger franchise) than in adding some local, expert perspective to the re-cap articles. Thus driving away the few remaining people who read that poor excuse for a sports section on any regular basis.

Exactly; it's not just a sports thing. In fact, it's far more of a "news" phenomenon largely driven by TV ratings of successful (mostly political) shows that count on the shrillest and most extreme voices to drive viewership.

@Dusty, Mr.C: Totally agree with you. It seems that the only Dodgers feature writing we get (short of the "Dodgers FYI" pieces full of snippets) is an inflammatory article from Plaschke or a non-interview self-referencing Joel-Stein-like piece from TJ Simers.

This town has only four real profesional sports teams, the Dodgers, Lakers, Kings, and Galaxy. Six, if you count the Clippers and Angels.

The LATimes should be able to afford to send a beat reporter to one of only four of the Dodgers' east-coast road trips. And equip said beat reporter with an internet-accessible device so he/she can submit his/her article in time to make the print edition.

@Eric Stephen 9:06a: Are you not cool with Steve Dilbeck? I think he's doing a good job--with big shoes to fill as Jon Weisman's successor--and I appreciate that he's been prolific as well. Do you agree?

I know you know Dylan wrote a story - I just think you're missing the point. It's not an editorial choice. This was sealed months ago when the Times gave the WSJ access to its printing press. Kevin Roderick wrote about this a bunch at L.A. Observed. This has been going on with Laker, Clipper and Kings games for weeks now.

As far as I know they aren't using LATExtra for Sports - nor are they really using it for its intended purpose, since you see a lot of daytime stories in it. It's very odd.

So we're left with AP stories from some stringer who didn't even attend the game; designated pot-stirrers like Plaschke and Simers who inflame, not inform; an ever-shrinking sports section whose content is often dictated by shared press time with another publication most LA Times readers don't subscribe to so don't benefit from; content that is written and posted on the internet on, say, a Wednesday, then passed off as news in the sports section on Saturday; opinion over news; and all this in the age of the internet and social media where people have far greater - and better - and cheaper - choices on where to get their Dodgers news.

I'm actually quite glad to have have posted this one. I've learned a lot, and I appreciate the input from Jon and Eric among others. And it's nice to see that a lot of the SoSG readers are also questioning the LA Times' commitment to the city's only MLB team.

I think in all of this, I feel for Dylan Hernandez the most. Give the guy the print space he deserves, for pete's sake.

In all this, it's important for bloggers, especially the ones taking part in this discussion, to keep delivering such great alternatives to traditional LA Times baseball coverage a) because it's now the best place(s) to get such coverage and b) it puts pressure on LA Times to compete better or to simply get out. I don't want to see it get out, but I also can't stomach the current environment enough to continue to pay for such a poor product.

I also liked how the LA Times changed the bylines about six months ago so that they now say "STEVE SAX, Reporting from {non-Los Angeles place)". No mention of title whatsoever at the top...

...because when you get to the bottom of the article, it will say "Steve Sax is a staff writer for the Gilroy High School Garlic Clove". Why have LA Times staff writers, when you can swipe content from everywhere else?